G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

Great! Thanks for the clarification, fellas!  8-)

I made a small clarifying edit to the balanced mod rules post
Kid, please let me know if you don’t like what I did - just edit it if you want
The rule does say “during amphibious assaults” but most people are probably like me and think that means the marines have to be unloaded and amphibiously assaulting themselves.  It would be great if the game notes in Triple A could be edited as well - I think this will be difficult to remember otherwise

Very interesting detail…… Makes me think marines should just attack at 2 by themselves in all circumstances, but that would take a coding change

It’s an XML change though isn’t it, not an engine change?

I would guess this “feature” is because the engine only knows that the battle is amphibious rather than the unit.

coding change, XML change…… all the same to this luddite

XML is the data. I can change that. I can’t necessarily change the code - requires approval.

I had no plans to do so. Don’t worry.

I like some of the proposals that I read in the thread, like the one Karl mentioned about being able to walk from Sicily to Southern Italy, however, it is soon for me to know how a rule change could impact this new fantastic ruleset.

I played only a few bm games in the last quarter of 2016, and I feel that for me it is a bit soon to judge if it is really balanced or not, on one hand because I need more games, and on the other hand because my Allies are weaker than my Axis.

I want to congratulate the creators of this version, the small amount of games played showed me that BM 2.0 is a lot of fun and it is a great A&A.

Just for those with curiosity, after these tests, for 2017 league I decided playing only BM, easy wins with Axis in 2nd edition is good, but not fun. I suggest all players with doubts on it, to do the same, no matter we collect a lot of defeats!!

The second decision for 2017 league has been playing only switch sides game pairs, to ensure sufficient practise with Allies (that I particularly need). I started the first pair of 2017 league games already with my friend JWW, who I think is on similar level now as mine.

I wish you all and your families a fantastic 2017! full of health and prosperity,

and including great A&A gaming moments!

Thank you all for making it not only possible, but excellent!

Juan

Apologies if this has been asked before, but in a Vichy situation, where Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco are all pro-Axis neutrals, can a Mech infantry that begins the turn in Tunisia move through Algeria and Morocco, activating the Inf in both places, in a single move?

No, because neutral rules apply, and you can never drive through a friendly neutral the turn you activated it, not even with a tank

This is true whether there is neutral infantry there or not

Ah, thanks!

I was wondering if there had been any thought about another Inf unit like the Marine i.e. for the European side such as an Elite unit?

I see Marines are used a lot but mainly on Pac. side and if used on european side it is mostly used by the US.
The Unit (Marine) is therefore more a Allied supporting unit then a general unit for all nations.
Or am I wrong about this or just missing something??

@aequitas:

I was wondering if there had been any thought about another Inf unit like the Marine i.e. for the European side such as an Elite unit?

I see Marines are used a lot but mainly on Pac. side and if used on european side it is mostly used by the US.
The Unit (Marine) is therefore more a Allied supporting unit then a general unit for all nations.
Or am I wrong about this or just missing something??

I think they are used fairly evenly by the Axis and the Allies, and in both theaters. If there is a difference in their use between Axis and Allies, it’s sure to be small.

I don’t see the value of adding another unit, but I can listen to your case.

anti tank guns would b gud. 1/2 unit that gets +3 defense when being attacked by enemy armour. costs 7 IPC :-P

Regarding British med. NOs

They get +3 for all original territories and they get + 3 for Cyprus, Malta and Crete (at least pro allies).

This means if Italy for example takes Cyprus uk loses two NOs, listed above. Is this a good design /priority of British objectives? At the top of my head I think Malta and Cyprus are the only examples of a single territory counting for two different objectives? (I have read the prior discussion in late November)  Maybe the Malta, Cyprus and Crete objective should be changed to avoid this?

There’s a few groups of islands which give both sides an objective. e.g. Guam/Wake Is/Midway. Going to Cyprus often means bypassing Crete which has a German objective.

I think they got a bit carried away frankly.

My point is, holding Malta or Cyprus by Italy/Germany removes two objectives for the British. I am wondering if this is intended?

@Gamerman01:

@Adam514:

What is crazy with the Crete NO? And the income swing for Z99 is only 5 PUs. That’s hardly over the top considering you need 2 tps to take them, and that zone is often covered by UK air.

Cyprus is part of the original territories NO for UK, which is +3.  Cyprus and Crete with Malta give UK +3 and also give Italy +3.  Crete gives Germany +2.  That is a total of ELEVEN, not FIVE.  This is why I say Z99 is over the top crazy now.  Cyprus and Crete?  Seriously?  So some people have some romantic notion with Crete and Germany and history?  What - ever

You don’t need two transports to take them!  Marines!
Besides, you don’t have to forfeit any transports - just move the fleet there once, or go when the Allies aren’t in range.  It’s not hard to take Crete and Cyprus with Italy - not hard at all.

Re-post from December 3, this thread:

I just don’t like how a single obscure island affects multiple NO’s, and 2 of them are now in the same sea zone

If Italy simply takes Cyprus, then the UK is denied 2 NO’s
If Italy takes Cyprus and Crete at the same time, which is very easy to do, then Germany is set up for the +2, Italy is very close to the +3, and it will be difficult for the UK to get +3 X 2

That’s too much importance on Z99.  Without any of these NO’s, it was already a good idea for Italy to take all these islands (didn’t have to worry about Crete unless the Allies take it) because the Allies have no place to land aircraft

I had to spell out exactly how Iwo Jima and Sicily/Sardinia could be used, for example, to open up very effective bomber threats on Rome and Z6 (which surprises me very much).  It would take significant effort to spell out various ways that other islands (although I did spell out how Me1945, who is an expert, effectively used Cyprus against me, and I am also an expert as you say) are significant.  You don’t have to actually land anything there for it to be strategically important - just the fact that it opens up many more attack options for your aircraft, and the possibility of being able to land aircraft there immediately, AND the possibility to be able to buy an airbase at the same time as moving your fleet there, and yes, even to a spot like Z99, are all significant.

Again, I am amazed that the balanced mod team seems to think that almost every island on the map needs an NO to make it interesting

You’ve observed hundreds of games and played hundreds of games and very rarely saw Paulau, Marshall and Marianas taken by the Allies?  Well I guess I am a very rare player